Copy article

Did Help to Buy work—and should it return?

ended 16. September 2026

The government’s independent evaluation estimates that Help to Buy generated £25.1bn of net social value and was responsible for around 15% of new homes built in England between 2013 and 2023.

The government’s newly published independent evaluation of Help to Buy estimates that the scheme generated £25.1bn of net social value and was responsible for around 15% of new homes built in England between 2013 and 2023.

But the findings are not entirely positive. Some 54% of customers said they could have bought without the scheme, while the evaluation concluded that Help to Buy probably increased prices modestly, particularly in areas that were already less affordable. Its greatest effect also appears to have been during the post-financial-crisis recovery rather than during its later years.

With developers now facing slower sales and first-time buyers struggling with affordability:

  • Should a redesigned Help to Buy scheme be introduced?
  • Would demand-side support encourage developers to start more schemes—or principally increase prices?
  • How should a new scheme avoid supporting buyers who could purchase without it?
  • Would mortgage guarantees, shared equity or stamp-duty reform be more effective?
  • Are there current developments that would proceed more quickly if first-time-buyer demand were stronger?

Comments from developers, development lenders, brokers, housebuilders and first-time-buyer specialists are particularly welcome. Please distinguish evidence from your own business from wider market opinion.

10 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Pro
Tony SanchezVerified
Founder at Bridging Loan Directory
Helping buyers and helping developers are connected, but they are not the same test. A scheme might make a purchase affordable without prompting another home to be built.

The evaluation gives us evidence that Help to Buy supported housing delivery. It does not tell us that bringing it back unchanged would produce the same result today.

For development finance, the question is whether targeted buyer support would give developers enough confidence in sales to start sites they are currently holding back. That is what I would want a replacement scheme to demonstrate.
Copy

Pro
Matt CoulsonVerified
Founder at Heron Financial
It worked, and the government's own evaluation shows why its biggest impact came in the recovery years. The original scheme solved two problems at once, the deposit and the monthly payment, by pairing a 5% deposit with an equity loan that charged no interest for five years. That left borrowers several bands below a 95% mortgage, so the payment was genuinely affordable, which is what actually stops people buying. The flaw the evaluation exposes is that 54% could have bought anyway, so any redesign has to be aimed tightly at those who truly can't, and at first-time buyers. Should it come back? Yes, but built around the monthly payment, because the market has largely solved deposits with low-deposit products. A blunt subsidy risks nudging prices up, so target it, tie it to genuine need, and give it a different name, because the old one carries too much baggage. Guarantees and stamp duty tinkering do far less for the buyers who are actually stuck.
Copy

Pro
Tracey DixonVerified
Buy-to-Let Mortgage Specialist & Owner at Pure Mortgage and Protection
From my work with first-time buyers, the obstacle is rarely just the deposit; monthly affordability is often equally important. Help to Buy assisted some households, but it should not return unchanged. The finding that 54% believed they could buy without it shows the risk of subsidising purchases that would happen anyway.

In my wider market view, demand-side support without additional supply risks pushing up prices rather than improving affordability. Any new scheme should be limited to genuine first-time buyers who cannot purchase without assistance, with local income and property-price caps, and linked to additional homes.

Shared equity could bridge both deposit and affordability gaps, but future interest and repayment must be completely transparent. Mortgage guarantees can improve access to high loan-to-value lending, but they do not solve affordability. A carefully targeted scheme tied to new supply would be far more defensible than simply reviving the old model.
Copy

Pro
Ranald MitchellVerified
Director at Charwin Mortgages
Help to Buy may have boosted transactions and supported construction, but that does not mean it was good housing policy. If 54% of users believed they could have bought without it, a significant part of the scheme was simply pumping extra purchasing power into an already constrained market. My concern is that it encouraged some buyers to purchase at a level they could not comfortably sustain without government support, and we are now seeing the consequences as borrowers try to repay or refinance Help to Buy equity loans in a much tougher mortgage market, with many not able to exit. The answer is not to keep inventing schemes that prop up demand and support prices. The housing market needs to find its natural level and reset. Government intervention should focus on increasing supply, improving planning and helping genuinely constrained first-time buyers, not creating another mechanism that risks making homes more expensive while postponing the underlying affordability problem.
Copy

Pro
Martin RaynerVerified
Financial Adviser at Compton Financial Services
Help to Buy is fine when it gets people onto the ladder without warping the market. Create winners and losers and fairness walks out the door.

The lack of Help to Buy is not what is holding developers back. Build costs, planning and red tape are far bigger obstacles to getting new homes built.

Any scheme with artificial price caps creates its own problems. We saw that in London, where the £450,000 Help to Buy ceiling effectively became a magnet. Developers naturally built and priced homes around the cap.

Trying to police who “really needs” the help also risks creating bureaucracy dressed as fairness. Keep it simple: need it, use it; do not, leave it.

Help to Buy is a sticking plaster. Stamp duty is the handbrake. Cut that tax and people finally move to the home that fits.
Copy

Pro
Justin MoyVerified
Managing Director at EHF Mortgages
Any new scheme to help people get on the property ladder needs more thought this time round. The previous HTB scheme only featured new-build properties, and was principally for first-time buyers; extending the scheme to non-new-build homes would spread the effect and risk of price inflation. Developers would need to price their properties more competitively, compared to older properties in their local areas, and borrowers would not feel quasi-pressured to buy new build to benefit from the scheme.

As long as property prices are not inflated for the scheme, the broad design of HTB will work, but making it available only to a narrow band of buyers with no previous homeownership experience feels like a backward step from 2013.

Copy

Pro
Mike StatonVerified
Director at Staton Mortgages
Despite having its critics, the help to buy scheme was a win for the economy, the housing market, homebuyers and the government. I also benefitted from this scheme as we took the full 20% equity loan to purchase a new build property, not only did the loan boost our deposit, it also made our monthly payments more affordable. That's two birds killed with one stone, affordability and deposit, 2 of the biggest obstacles facing buyers. We were lucky enough to benefit from the first scheme, where it was not restricted to first time buyers. If a scheme was introduce to help boost any buyers deposit and reduce monthly benefit, then things like affordability and Stamp duty become less of a burden. It's a no brainer to bring back this scheme
Copy

Pro
Stephen PerkinsVerified
Norwich Mortgage Broker and Managing Director at Yellow Brick Mortgages
Help to Buy clearly did support both first-time buyers and new-build supply, but the evaluation also shows why any replacement needs to be better targeted. If 54% of users could have bought without it, we should avoid spending public money helping people simply buy a bigger home. A redesigned scheme should focus on buyers who are genuinely deposit-constrained but can afford the mortgage, with tighter eligibility and sensible regional limits. Supply matters too: support should encourage additional homes to be built, otherwise extra buying power risks simply feeding into higher prices.
Copy

Plus
Jamie AlexanderVerified
Mortgage Director at Alexander Southwell Mortgages
If it comes back it needs to be tighter and broader at the same time. Tighter on eligibility, genuinely targeted at buyers who cannot purchase without support. Broader on property type, because restricting it to new builds last time handed developers a captive audience and they priced accordingly. Opening it to existing homes spreads demand more evenly and takes that pricing pressure away.

The principle is sound. The execution last time had real flaws. Get the targeting right and it is worth doing again.
Copy

Daniel Meadows
Director at Summit Financial Solutions
Having been involved with Help to Buy from the start, I believe it was one of the most effective homeownership schemes introduced. It improved affordability, secured competitive mortgage rates through lower LTVs and gave buyers a clear route to 100% ownership.

While concerns around house price inflation are valid, a modern version could include strict eligibility criteria and stronger oversight from government, developers, lenders and surveyors. It could also be largely self-funding through equity growth and loan interest.

Developers are looking for ways to stimulate demand and increase housing delivery, and in my view a means-tested Help to Buy scheme for first-time buyers remains the best solution for increasing homeownership and supporting housing delivery. It wasn't perfect, but no scheme introduced since has matched its combination of affordability, flexibility and lender support.